From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27784 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2013 13:41:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 27771 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Feb 2013 13:41:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mga09.intel.com (HELO mga09.intel.com) (134.134.136.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:41:42 +0000 Received: from orsmga002.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.21]) by orsmga102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2013 05:40:24 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([163.33.3.155]) by orsmga002.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 11 Feb 2013 05:41:40 -0800 Received: from irsmsx151.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.192.59) by IRSMSX102.ger.corp.intel.com (163.33.3.155) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.355.2; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:41:39 +0000 Received: from irsmsx102.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.2.108]) by IRSMSX151.ger.corp.intel.com ([169.254.4.144]) with mapi id 14.01.0355.002; Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:41:38 +0000 From: "Metzger, Markus T" To: Jan Kratochvil CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "markus.t.metzger@gmail.com" Subject: RE: [rfc 3/5] record: make it build again Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:41:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <1360337423-27095-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1360337423-27095-4-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <20130210221059.GC4819@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20130210221059.GC4819@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2013-02/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourcewa= re.org] On Behalf Of Jan Kratochvil > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:11 PM Thanks for your review! [...] > > static void > > +record_info (void) >=20 > Such functions should be called/renamed to record_full_info, they are spe= cific > for record-full.c and moreover other backends will have the same function. >=20 > You can rename everything, also record_ops, record_core_ops -> record_ful= l_*. >=20 > GDB prevents using static names duplicated across files. (Maybe it comes= from > the time before "ambiguous linespec" start to put breakpoints on all of t= hem.) I also renamed struct, macro, and variable names to be consistent. To make = this easier to review, I'm doing this renaming in a separate patch. It's quite a= lot. [...] > > + /* Deprecate the old version without "full" prefix. */ > > + c =3D add_alias_cmd ("restore", "full restore", class_obscure, 1, > > + &record_cmdlist); > > + set_cmd_completer (c, filename_completer); > > + deprecate_cmd (c, "record full restore"); >=20 > This (and all add_alias_cmd below) don't display the warning as discussed > before. >=20 > I guess we can keep it as is as the missing warning is tracked > deprecated_cmd_warning does not work for prefixed commands > http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D15104 > and the only command where it is most visible is "target record" which you > have successfully workarounded in the patchset. Sounds good. Thanks. > a bit offtopic: 'git am' somehow broken on applicating the patchset (but = later > it went OK by hand), it would be easier to have it in a public GIT branch, > possibly in > http://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/ArcherBranchManagement > needing an account http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/pdw/ps_form.cgi which yo= u are > going to get for the later check-in anyway; or you could use github or so= me > such site. Can I use my sourceware account also for Archer or do I need to request a n= ew account for it? Is it OK to rebase an archer branch? I do this to incorporate review commen= ts to maintain a reviewable patch series. I would still send patches, right? And they are still expected to apply on = gdb's Master, right? The next patch I'm adding will rely on the btrace series plus the patches i= n this series. It will not apply without btrace below, anymore. That's quite a big= series for adding a small patch. Would Archer help me, there? How would I send patches so that people know what to review and at the same time allow them to apply the patch and try the changes? [...] I interpret your replies to the other patches in the series such that you approved http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-02/msg00217.html, http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-02/msg00216.html, and http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-02/msg00212.html. I added comments to the commit messages. Regards, Markus. Intel GmbH Dornacher Strasse 1 85622 Feldkirchen/Muenchen, Deutschland Sitz der Gesellschaft: Feldkirchen bei Muenchen Geschaeftsfuehrer: Christian Lamprechter, Hannes Schwaderer, Douglas Lusk Registergericht: Muenchen HRB 47456 Ust.-IdNr./VAT Registration No.: DE129385895 Citibank Frankfurt a.M. (BLZ 502 109 00) 600119052